If I may....It is a widely-accepted condition of the impact collision, scientifically, today, that the ball starts off in a direction which is, on average, in the neighborhood of 80% of the difference between the horizontal clubface alignment and the horizontal clubhead path, favoring the former. The actual number varies with friction. In fact, it is solely friction which causes the ball to leave the face at any angle other than 90*. That's true vertically as well as horizontally. But none of this is new, as it was well documented in "Search For The Perfect Swing", which came out in 1968, one year before Homer's first edition.
You know, I have such a hard time taking all these "new" ball flight laws seriously. Thanks to Homer Kelley, I've been teaching them for more than thirty years.
Regarding Search For the Perfect Swing. Yes, it came out in the year before the first edition of TGM, but it was far from 'perfect'. In fact, in our January 1982 Master Class, though Homer applauded its efforts to quantify impact -- "We need more studies like this." -- he also used it as an example of how very smart, well-intentioned individuals couldn't get it right, especially regarding the application of Principle to Procedure.
He also said that, because of the inherent conflicts evidenced between the various authors/researchers, there would never be a second edition.
2-A RESILIENCE The response of the ball to different applications of force is the factor that determines how force must be applied to produce a desired result.................
........ Roll of the ball on the face of an inclined striker does not account for all the action produced by such an impact, especially in imparting spin to the ball. When the direction of the compressing force does not pass exactly through the center of the ball, a spin will be imparted to the ball. It will rotate on the plane of a line drawn from the line of compression to a parallel center line.
Bold by Daryl
Below, is the explanation to what Homer said in the sentence that I highlighted in bold:
Imagine drilling an off-center hole through a ball (bottom line of compression) on the line of compression and pushing a stick through it so that it sticks out both ends. This stick doesn't pass through the center of the ball. Now drill a second hole through the ball that passes through the center (Top line) and is perfectly parallel to the first hole, then insert a stick. Those two sticks represent the Spin Plane caused by the Line of Compression of that Impact. The Spin Plane is highlighted in green.
After you insert both sticks, no matter how you rotate or orient the ball, the spin plane will always be represented by those two sticks as long as "The original contact points of the Clubface and ball remain in contact throughout the entire Impact Interval". Any Impact that doesn't maintain the impact as also the separation point, unless done intentionally, is a "Mis-Hit". Furthermore, the rate of Spin is determined by the distance between those two Parallel Lines for any given Clubhead Speed.
The "Search for the Perfect Swing" does not include this information. "The Search for the Perfect Swing" and "The Physics of Golf" only outline the conditions of "Mis-Hit" Impacts.
"D Plane" is not the Science. "D Plane" (Path and Face) is Application (How to mis-hit the Ball). TGM is the Science.
You know, I have such a hard time taking all these "new" ball flight laws seriously. Thanks to Homer Kelley, I've been teaching them for more than thirty years.
Regarding Search For the Perfect Swing. Yes, it came out in the year before the first edition of TGM, but it was far from 'perfect'. In fact, in our January 1982 Master Class, though Homer applauded its efforts to quantify impact -- "We need more studies like this." -- he also used it as an example of how very smart, well-intentioned individuals couldn't get it right, especially regarding the application of Principle to Procedure.
He also said that, because of the inherent conflicts evidenced between the various authors/researchers, there would never be a second edition.
He was right.
Kelley was small in stature and soft-spoken, but he had big plans for his system, and could be scathing to those who offered a different view. I get the sense that he felt threatened by this study. So he steered his disciples away from it. If a single man, with no formal degrees, dismisses the findings of a team of decorated professors and experts in various disciplines, and just so happens to also have a book offering a science-based solution to golf.....well, that throws up a red flag for me. I've heard several TGM disciples now, repeat Kelley's contention of errors in "Search". But the team didn't present anything that they couldn't prove, using standard procedures and the "scientific method". That's the way trained scientists do things. And "Search" never claimed to be a "complete" anything. It simply asks and answers questions on golf using standard scientific research protocol. In the end, it provides a very detailed, easy to follow, explanation of, among other things, how and why the flight, spin, and curve of the ball is created. "New" Ball Flight Laws? Hardly. Why was Kelley so critical? The team had no agenda. Most of the professors and universities donated their time and equipment for the study. How many dismissed the book because of what they heard Kelley had said about it? What a shame. Come to think of it, I've never heard any of them point out exactly WHAT is "wrong" with the research findings of scientists in "Search"? Before they do, they should probably read it first.
Kelley was small in stature and soft-spoken, but he had big plans for his system, and could be scathing to those who offered a different view. I get the sense that he felt threatened by this study. So he steered his disciples away from it. If a single man, with no formal degrees, dismisses the findings of a team of decorated professors and experts in various disciplines, and just so happens to also have a book offering a science-based solution to golf.....well, that throws up a red flag for me. I've heard several TGM disciples now, repeat Kelley's contention of errors in "Search". But the team didn't present anything that they couldn't prove, using standard procedures and the "scientific method". That's the way trained scientists do things. And "Search" never claimed to be a "complete" anything. It simply asks and answers questions on golf using standard scientific research protocol. In the end, it provides a very detailed, easy to follow, explanation of, among other things, how and why the flight, spin, and curve of the ball is created. "New" Ball Flight Laws? Hardly. Why was Kelley so critical? The team had no agenda. Most of the professors and universities donated their time and equipment for the study. How many dismissed the book because of what they heard Kelley had said about it? What a shame. Come to think of it, I've never heard any of them point out exactly WHAT is "wrong" with the research findings of scientists in "Search"? Before they do, they should probably read it first.
I'll bet Homer got cranky arguing with the leaders of the PGA who taught us all that the ball starts on the path. What did he know?
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
Kelley was small in stature and soft-spoken, but he had big plans for his system, and could be scathing to those who offered a different view. I get the sense that he felt threatened by this study. So he steered his disciples away from it.
In our January 1982 Master Class, I never once heard Homer Kelley raise his voice in anger or deliver any critique that could be considered "scathing". He talked of many competing ideas, but never did I hear an attitude of "They're wrong, and I'm right." Nor did he give the impression he was "threatened" by the work of others. He asked only that they prove their ideas (as he had his).
Regarding 'Search', he never steered us "away" from it. To the contrary, he introduced us to it. He applauded much that was good and spoke of the need for more and more research along the lines presented. Much of his relatively minor criticism was directed at the sin of omission, i.e., "They had the data, and they could have gone 'this way', but they didn't."
In our January 1982 Master Class, I never once heard Homer Kelley raise his voice in anger or deliver any critique that could be considered "scathing". He talked of many competing ideas, but never did I hear an attitude of "They're wrong, and I'm right." Nor did he give the impression he was "threatened" by the work of others. He asked only that they prove their ideas (as he had his).
Regarding 'Search', he never steered us "away" from it. To the contrary, he introduced us to it. He applauded much that was good and spoke of the need for more and more research along the lines presented. Much of his relatively minor criticism was directed at the sin of omission, i.e., "They had the data, and they could have gone 'this way', but they didn't."
O.K., fair enough. But criticism to near dismissal of "Search" by TGM devotees is recurrent. Gummer is critical in his book, making unfair comparisons between TGM and "Search". And Ive seen other TGM devotees take a "TGM VS. Search" stance. It IS overly defensive. "Search" remains the most extensive collection of golf research findings ever assembled. Every serious "student of the game" would benefit from intimate familiarity with its findings.
I make it a point to study the many classic texts of golf instruction.....of which TGM certainly is. Simply put, "the more you know, the more you know".
Yoda, your videos have been instrumental in my understanding of several key TGM concepts. Thank You, Sir.
I make it a point to study the many classic texts of golf instruction.....of which TGM certainly is. Simply put, "the more you know, the more you know".
Yoda, your videos have been instrumental in my understanding of several key TGM concepts. Thank You, Sir.
You're welcome, Max. Glad to have made a difference.
BTW, my own bookshelves are filled to bursting with golf books of the last 120 years or so. Nothing to compare with Drewitgolf's collection, but all piled up, they would make quite a stack.
You're welcome, Max. Glad to have made a difference.
BTW, my own bookshelves are filled to bursting with golf books of the last 120 years or so. Nothing to compare with Drewitgolf's collection, but all piled up, they would make quite a stack.
Not to get off topic but...All I want for Christmas is another bookcase. I am running out of room . Maybe I should get a book on how to build them.
Nice find Daryl. The book on the left could be any of the first three editions (they were the same size with a yellow/brown dust jacket). The middle book is a fourth (shorter than all other editions) and the book on the right a fifth, sixth or seventh. It is still an impressive collection, despite the lack of the complete works of Homer Kelley.
. Maybe I should get a book on how to build them.
Hybrid Mode
